This Article Full Text (PDF) References Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Citation Map Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Alert me to new issues of the journal Add to Saved Citations Download to citation manager Request Permissions Request Reprints Add to My Marked Citations Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Citing Articles via Scopus Google Scholar Articles by Frary, R. B. Search for Related Content Social Bookmarking                         What's this?

The Effect of Misinformation, Partial Information, and Guessing on Expected Multiple-Choice Test Item Scores

Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University

Six response/scoring methods for multiple-choice tests are analyzed with respect to expected item scores under various levels of information and mis information. It is shown that misinformation always and necessarily results in expected item scores lower than those associated with complete igno rance. Moreover, it is shown that some re sponse/scoring methods penalize all conditions of misinformation equally, and others have varying penalties according to the number of wrong choices the misinformed examinee has categorized with the correct choice. One method exacts the greatest pen alty when a specific wrong choice is believed cor rect ; two other methods provide the maximum pen alty when the examinee is confident only that the correct choice is incorrect. Partial information is shown to yield substantially different expected item scores from one method to another. Guessing is an alyzed under the assumption that examinees guess whenever it is advantageous to do so under the scoring method used and that these conditions would be made clear to the examinee. Additional guessing is shown to have no effect on expected item scores in some cases, though in others it is shown to lower the expected item score. These out comes are discussed with respect to validity and reliability of resulting total scores and also with re spect to test content and examinee characteristics.

Applied Psychological Measurement, Vol. 4, No. 1, 79-90 (1980)
DOI: 10.1177/014662168000400109


CiteULike    Complore    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter    What's this?

This article has been cited by other articles:

				A. Ben-Simon, D. V. Budescu, and B. Nevo A Comparative Study of Measures of Partial Knowledge in Multiple-Choice Tests Applied Psychological Measurement, March 1, 1997; 21(1): 65 - 88. [Abstract] [PDF]

				D. Jaradat and N. Tollefson The Impact of Alternative Scoring Procedures for Multiple-Choice Items on Test Reliability, Validity, and Grading Educational and Psychological Measurement, September 1, 1988; 48(3): 627 - 635. [Abstract]

				R. B. Frary and T. P. Hutchinson Willingness to Answer Multiple-Choice Questions as Manifested Both in Genuine and in Nonsense Items Educational and Psychological Measurement, September 1, 1982; 42(3): 815 - 821. [Abstract]

				R. B. Frary A Simulation Study of Reliability and Validity of Multiple-Choice Test Scores Under Six Response-Scoring Modes Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics, January 1, 1982; 7(4): 333 - 351. [Abstract] [PDF]

				R. R. Wilcox Solving Measurement Problems with an Answer-Until-Correct Scoring Procedure Applied Psychological Measurement, July 1, 1981; 5(3): 399 - 414. [Abstract]